Good anarchist reporting is...

69 posts / 0 new
Last post
gurrier
Offline
Joined: 30-01-04
Nov 28 2005 21:21
IrrationallyAngry wrote:
No, Indymedia Ireland isn't great. It's a whole load better than most other IMCs though and incomparably better than the dismal UK IMC for pretty much the reasons you point out. Its editors still need to let their itchy trigger fingers go to work a good deal more though. The gradual rise in editorial ruthlessness almost exactly parallels the gradual rise in quality.

I think in trends smile and agree entirely about this trend and the reasons for it. The trend is great, the audience is huge and growing and we haven't compromised our non-hierarchical principles to get such an improvement. Compared to anything else on the left in Ireland, I think it's fair to call it great (and flawed but always improving).

On another note, IMC UK are currently having a detailled debate about how to implement a new seperation between 'quality' content and dross on the site. I really wish some more grounded anarchists would get involved in such debates (painful as they can be) rather than going on about how shit it is. It still has an audience many times bigger than any other publication on the left.

IrrationallyAngry
Offline
Joined: 23-06-05
Nov 28 2005 23:07
gurrier wrote:
Compared to anything else on the left in Ireland, I think it's fair to call it great (and flawed but always improving).

That's fair enough as far as it goes but really being great compared to Irish left websites or to the UK IMC is like being the tallest dwarf in the carnival. There simply aren't *any* really high quality, high traffic Irish left sites to compare it to, although there are a few useful archival sites.

gurrier wrote:
On another note, IMC UK are currently having a detailled debate about how to implement a new seperation between 'quality' content and dross on the site. I really wish some more grounded anarchists would get involved in such debates (painful as they can be) rather than going on about how shit it is. It still has an audience many times bigger than any other publication on the left.

Part of the problem is that it has set its stall out to be by and for the anarchist/anarchoid/libertarian scene in Britain. This has the obvious and intended effect of both excluding the much larger fragments of the left which don't see themselves as part of that scene. It also has the less obvious effect of encouraging an anything goes attitude towards stuff from within that scene. A total lack of quality control in other words. If its vaguely "non-heirarchical" or at least not too obviously linked to a left wing political party (with the partial exception of the Greens) then any old shite can stay up. Conspiranuts, animal rights fruitloops you name it.

gurrier
Offline
Joined: 30-01-04
Nov 28 2005 23:39
IrrationallyAngry wrote:
Part of the problem is that it has set its stall out to be by and for the anarchist/anarchoid/libertarian scene in Britain. This has the obvious and intended effect of both excluding the much larger fragments of the left which don't see themselves as part of that scene. It also has the less obvious effect of encouraging an anything goes attitude towards stuff from within that scene. A total lack of quality control in other words. If its vaguely "non-heirarchical" or at least not too obviously linked to a left wing political party (with the partial exception of the Greens) then any old shite can stay up. Conspiranuts, animal rights fruitloops you name it.

I don't really think that's the root of the problem. Allowing hierarchical organisations to post would just add a regular stream of announcements of the formation of the 15th international of workers and peasants from a long list of one-man and his dog wannabe lenin outfits as well as the contents of socialist worker and a few other similarly vacuous papers.

The core problems are: consensus fundamentalism and an extreme post-modernist refusal to make value judgements about content.

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Nov 29 2005 07:28
Quote:
Part of the problem is that it has set its stall out to be by and for the anarchist/anarchoid/libertarian scene in Britain. This has the obvious and intended effect of both excluding the much larger fragments of the left which don't see themselves as part of that scene.

In fairness, I don't think the political label is what turns people off, it's the content which will make or break any publication. You could call yourself the world's most mainstream media outlet and never get anywhere if the content is rubbish. Equally, very good leftist/anarchist media tend to get good reviews regardless of ideology, and if their politics is mentioned at all there's the grudging praise of being so 'despite' being part of the anarchist/trot/etc movements.

Pilgrim
Offline
Joined: 18-05-04
Dec 2 2005 00:05
IrrationallyAngry wrote:
gurrier wrote:

Indymedia Ireland is great! (disclosure of bias)

But then again we do hide an awful lot of stuff that would remain elsewhere on various grounds which does to some extent set a minimum level of 'house style'. We also have a fair few regular high-quality writers which does help to establish a sense of consistency.

No, Indymedia Ireland isn't great. It's a whole load better than most other IMCs though and incomparably better than the dismal UK IMC for pretty much the reasons you point out. Its editors still need to let their itchy trigger fingers go to work a good deal more though. The gradual rise in editorial ruthlessness almost exactly parallels the gradual rise in quality.

I'd have to agree with the above.

Indymedia UK is becoming a joke. It has some decent stuff, don't get me wrong, but it also seems to have become a home for all manner of dross.

Instead of being a newswire, devoted to publicising issues and covering hard news stories, Indymedia UK attracts a rag-tag and bobtail of assorted undesirables. Animal rights nuts, far out conspiracy theorists, all sorts of people whose contributions are at best of dubious quality.

The IMC UK volunteers should be let off the leash and allowed to edit the content PROPERLY. Indymedia UK is meant to be a newswire, so lets have hard news stories, press releases/reports from protests, demo's public meetings and actions. And, while we're at it, lets ditch the conspiracy theorists, serial disruptors and such. There are plenty of sites for conspiraloons and space cadets, let them go elsewhere if that's what they want. If it isn't hard news or fair comment, then hide it, and let those of us who would like to see Indymedia UK become a decent and respected source of hard news and comment get on with making it happen.

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Dec 4 2005 12:20

just to get back to the basis of the thread, conversation I was haveing with creepyoller reminded me:

There's a strict legal limit of 50 words that you're allowed to directly quote from other publications on the grounds of public interest, more than that and it infringes copyright. On the whole it's best not to mention other publications at all if possible and rewrite their research in your own words, both on the grounds of copyright, and cos it generally sounds better than quotes (also, just a personal thing, I don't like to give the mainstream press any credit if I can avoid doing so).